A New Aproach To Logiken Latreian in Rom 12

A NEW APPROACH TO "logikm
latreian" IN ROMANS 12:1-2
/. Gerald Janzen
Christian Theological Seminary, Emeritus
I
n 1611, "God's secretaries" (as Adam Nicholson dubs the
committee that produced the KJV) translated Rom 12:1 as
follows: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of
God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" The italicized
words translate the Greek phrase, logikèn latreian. In the twentieth
century, the translation of that phrase was emended to "spiritual
worship" (RSV, NRSV). For its part, TEV renders the phrase, "true
worship," while JB offers a free paraphrase," worship . . . that is
worthy of thinking beings." A footnote to the phrase in JB says, "or
'in a spiritual way', as opposed to the ritual sacrifices of Jews or
pagans," and reference is made to Rom 1:9 {öh latreuö en tö pneumati
mou, RSV "whom I serve with my spirit") which JB renders "the God
I worship spiritually."
Commentators render the phrase in various ways.1 For
example, the noun latreian is rendered with "worship" (Cranfield,
The renderings of the following commentators may be found where

they comment on Rom 12:1-2: C. Β. E. Cranfield, The Epistle to the
Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986); James D. G. Dunn,
Romans 8-16 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1988); Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
Romans (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1993); Robert Jewell, Romans: A
Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007); Ernst
Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Wm. B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids,
1980); Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Wm. B.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 45

Käsemann, Dunn, Moo, Stuhlmacher, Jewett), "religion" (Dunn), or
"cult" (Fitzmyer); while the adjective logikèn is rendered
"understanding" (Cranfield), "spiritual" (Käsemann, Dunn) or
"reasonable" (Dunn, Stuhlmacher, Jewett) or "suited to your rational
nature" Fitzmyer) or "true" (Moo). Oddly, no one seems to carry
forward KJV's "service," though in terms of semantic range, from
sanctuary practice to military or political office (to, indeed, animal
husbandry!), this English noun and its verb function in contemporary
language in much the same way as the Hebrew terms translated in
LXX as latreia and latreuö.
As for what is meant by the phrase, the commentators just
cited routinely proceed by searching for the adjective logiké.
Observing that it does not occur in the LXX, they typically trace its
use in Stoic texts such as Epictetus, in Greek Hermetic mysticism, and
in certain Jewish texts, some of which contain the phrase logiké thysia,
"logiké sacrifice." Given the grammatical congruence of logiké thysia
and logiké latreia, as also their close semantic similarity, it must be
admitted that such texts offer suggestive clues to the realms of
ancient discourse in relation to which Paul makes his appeal in Rom
12:1-2. Jewett, after canvassing these other texts, and noting their
function in critique of material or superstitious cultic practices, ends
with a comment that for its relevance to the present study may be
quoted in full.
But Paul does not engage in Polemical contrasts. His

use of "reasonable worship," even though it may
have been mediated by the Hellenistic synagogue,
signals the desire to set claim to a broad tradition of
Graeco-Roman as well as Jewish philosophy of
religion. In place of the latreia of the Jewish cult
(9:24) or the worship of finite images in Greco-
Roman cults (1:23), Paul presents the bodily service
of a community for the sake of world transformation
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1996); Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the

Romans: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994).
46
A New Approach to "logike latreia"
and unification as the fulfillment of the vision of

worship that would be truly reasonable. In place of
the enlightened individual, touted by Greco-Roman
philosophers, there now stands the rationality of a
redeemed community committed to world mission.
Collective 'reason, not some vague spiritual
sentiment, was the crucial requirement of the
Spanish mission project with its wide range of
intellectual, logistical and political challenges.2
This passage, in my view, sums up the meaning of Rom 12:1-2

surpassingly well. But his opening sentence seems, if not
contradicted, at least qualified, by his reference to Paul's dialectical
use of latreia in Rom 1:23 and 9:24 and his repeated phrase, "in place
of." I would characterize Paul's use of latreia in 12:1, vis-à-vis his
application of that word in the two earlier passages, as a pristine
example of dialectical engagement over what the political
philosopher William E. Connolly calls "essentially contested
concepts." Connolly observes that "the language of politics is
not a neutral medium that conveys ideas independently formed; it is
an institutionalized structure of meanings that channels political
thought and action in certain directions."3 One illustration from the
Bible of implicit contestation over the meaning of a central political
concept-in this instance, blasphemous disloyalty-comes in the story
of Naboth's Vineyard in 1 Kings 21. When king Ahab tries to acquire
Naboth's vineyard by trade or purchase, Naboth refuses on religious
and social grounds (1 Kgs 21:3: "The LORD forbid that I should give
you the inheritance of my fathers.") At this, Ahab goes home in a
sulk, takes to his bed, turns his face to the wall and refuses to eat. In
response to Jezebel's inquiry, he says it is because Naboth won't give
him his vineyard; and at this she taunts him (21:1), "Do you now
2
730-31
3
William E. Connolly, The Terms of Political Discourse (Lexington,
Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1974), 1.1 thank my wife, Dr. Eileen R. Janzen, for
drawing my attention to Connolly's analysis.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 47

govern Israel?" and vows to get him his vineyard. At a public
gathering, two "base fellows" bring a charge against Naboth in the
presence of the assembly, saying, "Naboth cursed God and the king."
For this "crime," Naboth is stoned to death. In this way Jezebel
delivers the vineyard to her royal husband. For decades I took this
passage to imply that the fellows were "base" in that they trumped
up a false charge. Then I came to realize that no outright lying need
be involved. Instead, what we have here is an instance of kingship as
an essentially contested concept, and, as part of that contestation, the
issue of what might constitute blasphemous flouting of royal will and
authority. Behind the details of this story lie two conceptions of
kingship. One conception, in which the crown enjoys absolute
authority, such that any property may be claimed by eminent
domain, is at home in Phoenicia, Jezebel's homeland. She has learned
this conception of kingship from her royal father. The other
conception, governing Ahab's behavior, involves a more limited
conception of kingship, such that a person like Ahab holds his plot of
ground by inheritance from his ancestors who in turn received it by
allotment from God who is, among other things, an Israelite's court of
appeal from any king who attempts to rule like any other ancient
king. (Compare the model of kingship presented in Deut 17:14-20.)
"Kingship" means different things in Phoenicia and in Israel, and
therefore what is lèse-majesté in Phoenicia may not be so in Israel.
From Jezebel's point of view, Naboth has indeed cursed God and the
king, while in his own eyes Naboth has simply acted in loyalty to a
polity that both he and Ahab (atfirst)acknowledge to be appropriate.
In the present instance, I believe Jewett is right in implying
that, though the term latreia can be used in reference to pagan (1:23),
Jewish (9:23), and Christian (12:1 and 1:9) service of God, the phrase
logiké latreia will mean different things-indicate different practices
serving different polities as embedded in and embodying different
world-views-depending on the social contexts in which the phrase
has its meaning.
What I want to do in this paper is to identify and analyze a
parade example in 4 Maccabees of such an essential contestation over
what is there termed eusebés logismos, "devout reason." The writer of
48
4 Maccabees repeatedly terms this contest an agon (in Greece, literally

an athletic contest), and even more frequently presents the Jewish
protagonists as athletes who triumph in their martyr loyalty to God's
torah and receive the laurel wreath of victory and the prize of eternal
life. As we shall see, it is not simply a contest between two sets of
human wills, but more deeply a contest over what constitutes ensebes
logismos. I shall argue that the eusebés logismos of 4 Maccabees and the
logiké latreia of Romans 12 are semantically equivalent terms; that they
serve similar functions in their respective contexts of discourse; and,
indeed, that Paul may well be echoing 4 Maccabees at this as at other
points in Romans. Reserving further discussion for later, I will signal
at this point my conviction that the noun latreia and the verb latreuö
function in Romans analogously to the way the noun politeuma,
"polity" and the verb politeuomai ("conduct one's life in accordance
with the polity within which one lives") function in Philians. The
relevance of this claim is that the Greek word-cluster, politès, politela,
politeuma, politeuomai, built up from the noun polis, "city," occurs 34
times in the LXX, of which 32 occurrences are found in the
Maccabean literature, including 7 times in 4 Maccabees where it is
another way of talking about eusebés logismos.
I. I start with the pedestrian observation that the phrase logiké

latreia is composed of an adjective {logiké, "logical, reasonable") and a
noun {latreia, "service, worship"). These words occur in the LXX as
follows. The word latreia occurs only 9 times in the LXX. Where it
translates MT (Exod 12:25, 26; 13:5; Josh 22:27; 1 Chron 28:13), it
renders Hebrew abôdâ, "(ritual) service." In 1 Mace 1:43 and 2:19, 22
RSVA translates it, "religion" (of the Jews). (In 3 Mace 4:14 it refers to
labor.) The verb latreuö occurs 97 times in the LXX, overwhelmingly
in reference to the worship of Israel's God or idols. But it occurs only
once in the Maccabean literature, at 3 Mace 6:6 in reference to the
three who surrender their lives to the flames so as not to "serve vain
things" (idols). Conversely, the Greek word-cluster formed from
euseb* occurs 66 times in the Maccabean literature, 60 of these coming
in 4 Maccabees, while it occurs in LXX translating the
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 49

MT only in Proverbs (4x), Isaiah (6x) and Daniel (lx). (In addition, the
word thréskeia, "worship, cult, religion," occurs twice in 4 Maccabees
and twice in the Wisdom of Solomon but nowhere else in the LXX.)
As we shall see, the euseb* group of words occurs in 4 Maccabees with
a meaning equivalent to that of the latr* group where the LXX
translates MT texts.
The adjective logiké, "reasonable," does not occur in the LXX.
But we do find a noun cognate, logismos, "reasoning, reasoning
power," which occurs in the LXX 113 times, in the following
distribution: Micah lx; Nahum lx; Isaiah lx; Jeremiah 8x; Ezekiel lx;
Psalms 2x; Proverbs 5x; Ecclesiastes 3x; Daniel lx; Wisdom 7x; Sirach
lx; Greek additions to Esther lx; Judith lx; 1 Maccabees lx; 2
Maccabees 2x; 3 Maccabees lx; 4 Maccabees 73x. As with euseb*
words, so with logismos: the overwhelming concentration falls in 4
Maccabees. For the most part, logismos refers in the LXX to specific, ad
hoc reasonings or schemes for action. In a few instances this
connotation appears in a generalized statement. For example, Judith
8:14 says, "You cannot plumb the depths of the human heart, nor find
out what a man is thinking [logous tés dianoias]; how do you expect to
search out God, who made all these things, and find out his mind
[noun] or comprehend his thought [logismon]? No, my brethren, do
not provoke the Lord our God to anger." Such a connotation occurs
as early as Ps 33:10-11, "The LORD brings the counsels [boulas] of the
nations to nought; he frustrates the plans [logismous] of the peoples.
The counsel [boule] of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts
[logismot] of his heart to all generations." But the occurrences in 2 and
4 Maccabees are of special interest.
In 2 Maccabees 6, in part of that martyr narrative which
provides the inspiration for 4 Maccabees as a whole, the aged priest
Eleazar refuses to eat swine's flesh, spitting out the morsels forced
into his mouth. When counseled by sympathetic functionaries to
smuggle his own food and eat it while pretending to eat the pork, he
refuses,
making a high resolve [logismon], worthy of his

years and the dignity of his old age and the gray
hairs which he had reached with distinction and his
50
excellent life even from childhood, and moreover

according to the holy God-given law. (6:23)
The word here still describes an ad hoc mental act leading to a

specific behavior; but we may note that this act of reasoning is
"according to the holy God-given law" In 2 Mace 7:20-23 the widow
and mother of seven
was especially admirable and worthy of honorable

memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish
within a single day, she bore it with good courage
because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged
each of them in the language of their fathers. Filled
with a noble spirit [phronémati], she fired her
woman's reasoning [ton thélyn logismon] with a
man's courage [arseni thymo], and said to them, "I do
not know how you came into being in my womb. It
was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who
set in order the elements within each of you.
Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the
beginning of man and devised the origin of all
things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to
you again, since you now forget yourselves for the
sake of his laws."
I note that this woman is filled with phronêma, the power of practical
reason.4 This power is manifest in an act of "woman's reasoning."
The substance of this reasoning, which leads her to endure her sons'
deaths and her own, consists in her reflection on the mystery of God's
creation of the cosmos, God's work in the mystery of each person's
pre-natal existence, and the hope of resurrection. This hope is
integrally linked with the fact that these sons, like Eleazar and their
mother, live, and die, in faithful conformity to God's laws. This is to
4
The noun phronêma and its cognates occur frequently in Paul's
discussion of the issues at the heart of this paper. See, e.g., Rom 8:6-7,
27; 12:3,16; and especially 14:6; 15:5; also Phil 2:2,5; 3:15,19; 4:2; 4:10.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 51

say that, for the writer, logismos (which in 4 Maccabees we shall see to
be essentially contested) is to be understood within a complex web of
beliefs forming a total world-view.
The connotation of logismos that begins to emerge in these
two passages in 3 Maccabees comes to full flower in 4 Maccabees
where, as we have seen, it occurs 73 times. As we have also seen, in
place of the frequent use of the verb latreuö and the occasional use of
the noun latreia elsewhere in the LXX, 4 Maccabees uses thréskeia (2x)
and eusebeia and cognates (60x). What I find particularly suggestive is
the way the noun logismos and the adjective eusebês co-occur. We
encounter the phrase, eusebês logismos, "devout reason," 8 times. If we
were to convert this phrase by turning the adjective into a noun and
the noun into an adjective, we would get logiké eusebeia," "reasonable
piety." But the contestation, the agön, that is presented so
dramatically, is not over the meaning and nature of genuine eusebeia,
it is over what constitutes action informed by genuine,
philosophically defensible logismos. (Of course, it will also emerge in
this agön that what is meant by genuine philosophy is also contested!)
What I want to argue, then is that the phrase eusebês logismos in 4
Maccabees is a close cousin, semantically, of logiké latreia in Rom 12:1;
and I shall do this in large part by showing how it functions in 4
Maccabees in a way analogous to the function of logiké latreia in
Romans.
In its opening sentence, 4 Maccabees announces its main
topic this way (4 Mace 1:1): "The subject that I am about to discuss is
most philosophical [philosophötaton], that is, whether devout reason
[eusebês logismos] is sovereign over the emotions. So it is right for me
to advise you to pay earnest attention to philosophy [philosophiaÇ]"
What follows in the first three chapters is a philosophical discourse
on the sovereignty of devout reason over the emotions. As is
generally recognized, this discourse is heavily influenced by current
Stoic views; but the garden-variety Stoical philosophizing is pressed
into the service of Jewish religion as God-given. Following this
discourse, the writer offers "a narrative demonstration of temperate
reason [söphronos logismou]" (3:19).
One way to appreciate how the theme of devout reason
dominates the book is to compile a computer-assisted search of the
52
words logismos, euseb*, and thréskeia, and read the verses

consecutively. To appreciate the manner in which this book argues
for a specifically Jewish understanding of what constitutes "devout
reason," one may simply note, in these verses, the repeated references
to the Mosaic law and specifically to issues of food and the appetites.
Here, I will quote only a few salient texts and comment briefly on
them.
The phrase eusebês logismos occurs 8 times, starting at 1:1, and
ending at 18:2 in the midst of a passage which, following the end of
the "narrative demonstration" that began in 3:19, now turns to the
readers (within the text, presented as listeners) with this exhortation:
Israelite children, offspring of the seed of Abraham,

obey5 this law and exercise piety [eusebeite] in every
way, knowing that devout reason [eusebês logismos]
is master of all emotions [pathon], not only of
5
One may note that the expression, "obey this law" (peithesthe tö nomo
touto), in 18:1, has as a close synonym the expression in 5:16,
pepeismenoi nomo politeuesthai, "being persuaded to govern our lives
by this law." Here, as in 2:8, 23; 4:23, the speakers understand the
Mosaic torah as a polity by which to govern their lives. Paul uses the
verb politeuomai, and the noun politeuma, in Phil 1:27 and 3:20, where,
as his argument in chapter 3 (especially 3:2-3) underscores, he is
contesting what constitutes true polity, and true circumcision, with
his fellow Jews who do not follow Jesus as Messiah. It is worth noting
that in this letter Paul draws on athletic contest imagery in 1:30 {agön,
"conflict"), 2:16 {trecho, "run"), and, of course, 3:13-14. As I shall show
in section II below, the contestation over what constitutes behavior
manifesting true logismos is frequently presented in 4 Maccabees as an
agon, and the martyrs as athlëtai who, running their race successfully,
are wreathed with the victor's prize of eternal life. The way Paul, in
Philians, and 4 Maccabees resort to the same sorts of language in
contested understandings of polity helps to support my proposal that
there is a connection between Paul's phrase, logiké latreia, in Roml2:l
(and his use of latr* words in Rom 1:9, 25; 9:4), as a contested concept,
and the phrase eusebês logismos in 4 Maccabees.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 53

sufferings from within, but also of those from
without. Therefore those who gave over their bodies
[somata] in suffering for the sake of religion
[eusebeian] were not only admired by men, but also
were deemed worthy to share in a divine
inheritance.
The co-occurrence of verb and noun cognates, eusebeite and eusebeia,

along with the adjective in eusebês logismos, provides a fitting climax
to the whole narrative. Tellingly, it comes (along with its reference to
the law, and to the martyrs giving over their bodies [sic!] in suffering
for the sake of "piety") precisely where the address turns from
narrative description to exhortation. Thus this passage functions in a
way precisely analogous to the way Rom 12:1 functions in Romans-
even to using the image of the giving over of one's body.
The sacrificial connotation of giving over their bodies is
underscored by the fact that this exhortation follows close on the
heels of 17:20-22:
These, then, who have been consecrated

[hagiasthentes] for the sake of God, are honored, not
only with this honor, but also by the fact that
because of them our enemies did not rule over our
nation, the tyrant was punished, and the homeland
purified \katharisthénaí\ — they having become, as it
were, a ransom [antipsychon] for the sin of our
nation. And through the blood of those devout ones
[eusebön] and their death as an expiation [hilastêriou],
divine Providence [pronoia] preserved Israel that
previously had been afflicted.
This passage sets the stage for the reader to interpret the giving over
of the martyrs bodies in 18:1-3 as a consecrated sacrifice, specifically a
bloody hilastêrion (as in Rom 3:25)6 for the sin of the people and so for
6
It is a commonplace observation that whereas in the LXX the term
hilastêrion almost always designates the kappöret ("mercy seat"), as an
54
purification of the homeland. In this connection we may note that the

verb paristêmi, "present," occurs in Rom 12:1 for the first time since
6:13(2x), 16, 19(2x). Rom 6:19 reads, "Do not yield your members
[mele] to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to
God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your
members [melé] to God as instruments of righteousness." Just as the
Jewish martyrs are deemed worthy to share in "a divine inheritance"
(compare Rom 8:16-17), that is, immortality through resurrection, so
those who have died with Christ in baptism (Rom 6:3-4) are now
risen with him in order to "present" their members/bodies in lives of
righteousness. One may note that the theme of purification
{katharisthênai) and sanctification {hagiasthentes) in 4 Mace 17:21 is
echoed in Rom 1:24, "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts
[epithymiais] of their hearts to impurity [akatharsian], to the
dishonoring of their bodies [somata] among themselves."
The problematics of epithymia are, of course, an important
theme in 4 Maccabees, epithym* occurring as a noun or verb 16 times
in 1:1-4:19 and once in 5:23. Most of the occurrences speak of how
reason {logismos) controls {epikrateci) epithymia. But, as I shall show in
the next section, what constitutes true (i.e, devout) logismos, is an
"essentially contested concept." For 4 Maccabees, true or devout
reason is grounded in the torah. Thus (2:6), "since the law has told us
not to covet [mé epithymein], I could prove to you all the more that
reason is able to control desires [epithymiön]." Paul resembles 4 Mace
2:6 {mé epithymein) in presenting the tenth commandment in
abbreviated form (Rom 7:7)7 But in Paul's experience and
understanding, the problematics of epithymia are not solved through
the torah-ior he has found that mode of engagement to give sin an
opportunity to deceive and enslave (Rom 7:7-24, esp. 7:7-8). For Paul,
inanimate place where expiating blood is applied, only in 4 Mace

17:22 and Rom 3:25 does it designate persons in their bloody death on
behalf of others.
7
The resemblance is not exact, Rom 7:7 (and 13:9) reading ouk epithymeséis.
Jewett, {Romans 447) correctly notes the abbreviated form in both places, but
in other respects badly mangles his quotation both of Rom 7:7 and of 4 Mace
4:5-6.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 55

epithymia, as synecdoche for sin, is to be engaged through the Spirit
(Rom 8:1-11), whose desires (!) are opposed8 to those of the flesh (Gal
5:17).
II. The agön Over "Devout Reason" in 4 Maccabees

To this point, I have been drawing verbal and thematic
parallels between 4 Maccabees and Romans, where the echoes
between them seem entirely sympathetic. Now I want to move on to
the question of the "essential contestation" of the concept of eusebês
logismos as that agön is set forth within 4 Maccabees. This contestation
runs throughout the book, in the course of which the writer has
frequent recourse to the imagery that has its origin in the Greek
games. The words, athletes, "athlete," and agön" in its original
meaning of athletic competition, the imagery of the victor winning a
prize and crowned with a wreath, and even the imagery of running,
occur, and in the first two instances recur frequently. (There is no
space here to argue my suspicion that Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 and
Philians 3 draws his imagery of an athletic race, not directly from the
Greek games, but indirectly, through its use in 4 Maccabees.) But the
essence of the contestation is presented in 4 Maccabees 5, in the initial
exchange between Antiochus and Eleazar the priest. Antiochus says
(w. 6-13),
save yourself by eating pork.... It does not seem to

me that you are a philosopher when you observe the
religion [thrêskeia] of the Jews Why, when nature
[physeös] has granted it to us, should you abhor
eating the very excellent meat of this animal? It is
senseless not to enjoy delicious things that are not
shameful, and wrong to spurn the gifts of nature
[physeös]. It seems to me that you will do something
even more senseless [anoêtoteron] if, by holding a
vain opinion [kenodoxön] concerning the truth, you
continue to despise me to your own hurt. Will you
not awaken from your foolish philosophy, dispel
Does antikeitai in Gal 5:17 function analogously to parakeitai in Rom 7:18-21?
56
your futile reasonings [logismon], adopt a mind

appropriate to your years, philosophize according to
the truth of what is beneficial, and have compassion
[oiktirêseis{\)] on your old age by honoring my
humane [philanthröpon] advice? For consider this,
that if there is some power watching over this
religion [thréskeias] of yours, it will excuse you from
any transgression that arises out of compulsion.
We may note how the term "philosophy" emerges as itself an

essentially contested concept. The author of 4 Maccabees has
announced that his discussion of eusebês logismos is "most
philosophical," and that therefore his readers should "pay earnest
attention to philosophy" (1:1). Here Antioches maintains that what
the author and Eleazar call philosophy is vain, empty, foolish,
involving "futile reasonings." So, what constitutes genuine
philosophy is itself contested. Antiochus grounds his philosophy in
the nature of the cosmos and in human nature, making no reference
to deity. His understanding of true logismos presupposes that ultimate
frame of reference.
Eleazar's response (5:16-38) is considerably longer than
Antiochus's challenge. Therefore I shall in part quote it and in part
summarize it. He begins by noting that Jews "have been persuaded to
govern our lives [politeuesthai] by the divine law." After pointing out
that "transgression of the law in matters either small or great is of
equal seriousness," so that it would be no petty sin to eat defiling
food, he says, "you scoff at our philosophy as though living by it
were irrational [ou meta eulogistias], but it teaches us self-control
[sôphrosynên], so that we master all pleasures and desires [hédonôn kai
epithymiön],9 and it also trains us in courage, so that we endure any
9
Compare 1 Cor 9:24-27: "Do you not know that in a race all the
runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So rim that you
may obtain it. Every athlete [ho agönizomenos] exercises self-control
[egkrateuetai] in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath,
but we an imperishable. Well, I do not rim aimlessly, I do not box as
one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 57

suffering willingly; it instructs us in justice, so that in all our dealings
we act impartially, and it teaches us piety [eusebeian], so that with
proper reverence [megaloprepös] we worship [sebein] the only real
God." Rebutting Antiochus's appeal to nature, Eleazar says, "since we
believe that the law was established by God, we know that in the
nature of things [kata physin, literally, "in accordance with nature"]
the Creator of the world in giving us the law has shown sympathy
toward us. He has permitted us to eat what will be most suitable
[oikeiôthêsomena10] for our Uves, but he has forbidden us to eat meats
that would be contrary to this." He concludes,
preaching to others I myself should be disqualified [adokimos

genömai]." This passage, echoing 4 Maccabees in almost every aspect
of its imagery, could be taken as a summary of the latter author's
thesis. Note how Paul's verb, "exercise self-control," is echoed in 4
Mace 1:30-31, "Observe now first of all that rational judgment is
sovereign over the emotions by virtue of the restraining power of
self-control. Self-control, then, is dominance [epikrateia] over the
desires," and in the words of Eleazar in 5:34, "I will not play false to
you, O law that trained me, nor will I renounce you, beloved self-
control [egkrateia]." With Paul's use of adokimos in 1 Cor 9:27 compare
his use of the verb dokimazö in Rom 12:1.
10
Why the choice of the verb oikeioö, here-a word that occurs
nowhere else in the LXX? Like oiktirmos, "mercy, compassion" ( from
oikos + taro, "oppress, distress, weaken [of the effects of the effects of
pain, sorrow, etc., on body and mind" [LSJ, q.v.], in other words, an
emotion and disposition toward the pain, etc., of other members of
one's family), the verb oikeioö is built from the noun oikos, and means,
"to make suitable, familiar" and, in the passive, "to be made suitable
to." Here, the image is of God providing Israel, as God's household,
with food suitable to them. Does the author mean us to hear in
Eleazar's use of this word a retort to Antiochus appeal to him to show
oiktirmos to his own body? When Paul appeals to the Roman
Christians "by the mercies [oiktirmoi] of God" to present their bodies
as a living sacrifice, he is claiming the appropriateness of this as their
logiké latreia in a maner analogous to Eleazar's claim that his
58
I will not transgress the sacred oaths of my ancestors

concerning the keeping of the law, not even if you
gouge out my eyes and burn my entrails. I am not so
old and cowardly as not to be young in reason
[logismos] on behalf of piety [eusebeian]. . . . I do not
so pity [oiktiromai] my old age as to break the
ancestral law by my own act. I will not play false to
you, O law that trained me, nor will I renounce you,
beloved self-control [egkrateia]. I will not put you to
shame, philosophical reason [philosophe loge], nor
will I reject you, honored priesthood and knowledge
of the law. You, O king, shall not stain the honorable
mouth of my old age, nor my long life lived
lawfully. The fathers will receive me as pure, as one
who does not fear your violence even to death. You
may tyrannize the ungodly [asebön], but you shall
not dominate my religious principles [eusebeias
logismon] either by word or by deed.
In short, Eleazar defends the philosophical integrity and the

reasonableness of his refusenik stance first of all by appeal to the law
as from God, but also in accordance with nature as divinely created
and with divine solicitude for human nature and welfare. Thus, to
Antiochus's two-fold appeal to nature and humaneness, Eleazar
responds by attributing the law not to vainglory or futile reasoning,
but to God the Creator who gave the law both as in harmony with
nature and as beneficial to humanity. In short, eusebês logismos,
"devout reason," is here dramatized as an essentially contested
concept, in which the concept takes its meaning from the
philosophical, or ultimate, frame of reference within which it
functions.
observance of the food laws arises out of God's "familial" concern for
what is suitable [oikeiôthêsomena] for them.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 59

III. Rom 12:1-2 in Light of the agön in 4 Maccabees
With this we may return to Rom 12:1-2. Just as we have seen
with the term logismos, and in particular the phrase eusebês logismos, in
4 Maccabees, so, I suggest, for Paul here the equivalent phrase, logiké
latreia functions as an essentially contested concept whose meaning is
to be determined from the context in which it occurs. That context is
provided by the kerygmatic discourse that precedes it and the
didactic, hortatory discourse that follows it. (This distinction between
Romans 1-11 and 12-15 is rough-and-ready; each section has
elements of the other in it.) As in 4 Mace 18:1-3, so here Rom 12:1-2
makes the turn from one mode of discourse to another by calling
upon the readers to make their own response; and the image at the
heart of each call is the same: sacrificial self-offering. The basis for the
appeal is even generically similar. Just as the readers of 4 Maccabees
are called to emulate the example of their benefactors who gave
themselves as a hilastêrion, so Paul grounds his appeal in "the mercies
[oiktirmoi] of God," mercies which, if the preceding eleven chapters
mean anything at all, are enacted and demonstrated in the person and
work of Christ as a hilastêrion (Rom 3:25) of which Paul's readers are
the benefactors.11 Just as in Philians 1:27 the readers are called to
conduct their Uves {politeuesthai) in accordance with their membership
in the risen and ascended Christ's "commonwealth" (politeuma, Phil
2:20), and that conduct is to be worked out "in fear and trembling" in
relation to the Christie paradigm in Phil 2:5-11, so the readers of
Romans are to conduct their lives in accordance with this new
"polity," or "reasonable service." Some of the stoicheia, or elemental
building blocks, of this new polity, as identified in the rest of Romans
12, are definitive aspects of a certain mind-set in which one does not
think more highly of oneself than of others; repaying no one evil for
evil but rather repaying evil with good; and (in chapter 13), love of
neighbor as the hermeneutical principle in relation to which the
second table of the Decalogue is to be understood and enacted.
11
The occurrence of oiktirmoi in 12:1 picks up the theme in 9:15 where
God quotes Exod 33:19, "I will have mercy [eleêsô] on whom I have
mercy [eleo], and I will have compassion [oiktirésó] on whom I have
compassion [oiktirö]."
60
I may sum up the preceding argument in this way: For

Antiochus, reasonableness {logismos) in thought and action turns on
one's philosophical understanding of the nature of things both non-
human and human. For Eleazar and his Jewish companions in
martyrdom, reasonableness in thought and action is based on the
understanding of God as creator of all things and as giver of laws that
both comport with nature and provide for human wellbeing. For him,
therefore, genuine logismos is grounded in eusebeia, so that whenever
he speaks of logismos this single term is short for eusebês logismos,
"devout reason." For him, logismos not grounded in devotion to God
and God's law is really not true logismos, but all the things (such as
kenodoxia, "vain/empty opinion") that Antiochus takes his Jewish
tradition to be. Paul agrees with Eleazar that genuine logismos cannot
be practiced apart from its grounding in God and (to use the
language of Philians) the polity God has instituted. But whereas for 4
Maccabees (and the Maccabean tradition in general) God's polity is
definitively constituted through the giving of the law at Sinai, a law
that is in harmony with the workings of the natural world as God's
creation, For Paul, anyone who is "in Christ" finds oneself within a
"new creation," and within this new cosmic frame of reference, the
divine polity is newly instituted in Christ (Phil 3:20). Since the
understandings and practices of the old polities, whether pagan or
Jewish, are still deeply ingrained in the human heart and in the
established polities of human communities, Christians are confronted
with the challenge to undergo continual transformation, in mind and
in bodily practice. The latreia, the service, to which this challenge calls
Christians stands in a dialectical relation to the latreia of pagan
societies and of his Jewish ancestors and those Jewish contemporaries
not (yet) following Jesus as Messiah and Lord. On the one hand he
can speak of Gentiles as having the witness of the law written on their
hearts, such that their thoughts-their logismoi-àccuse or excuse them
(Rom 2:15); and he can celebrate God's gift of the law and the latreia
to Israel (9:4)-in part, no doubt, for the way it gives him, in things like
the hilastêrion in sanctuary and the rituals of atonement, a divinely-
sanctioned vocabulary for speaking of Christ. But for him, now,
"Christ is the telos of the law," and as for Gentiles, they are called to
give praise to God for his mercy in Christ (Rom 15:8-9). It is this
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 61

Christ-focused divine polity that henceforth, for Paul, identifies what
constitutes logiké latreia. And that latreia is meant, not so much draw a
boundary between Christians and other communities, as to draw a
boundary as wide as creation itself and invite all creatures into it.
As Jewett has put it, "Paul presents the bodily service of a
community for the sake of world transformation and unification as
the fulfillment of the vision of worship that would be truly
reasonable." The relationship between transformation and unification
lies at the heart of Paul's call throughout Romans 12-15. The test case
in terms of which this relationship is most fully presented comes in
Rom 14:1-15:13. Until Paul's "strong" and "weak" readers in Rome
can welcome one another as Christ has welcomed both types (Rom
15:7), in such fashion that those who still are conscience-bound to the
Jewish food laws, and those who (as Paul would say, rightly)
interpret the Gospel as freeing them to eat any and all foods as clean,
can respect one another and live in an un-condemning and non-
destructive relation to each other, not only do they fail to achieve the
unity Christ died and rose to "head up" and empower, but they
demonstrate that they have not been transformed in the renewing of
their minds. This is because (as with Antiochus and Eleazar) each
party understands its position on food to be "reasonable," and the
other position to be "nonsense" or worse. Thus, each party, in its own
way, shows itself still to be conforming to one or another of the
world's settled "schémas." (In Gal 4:3, 9, Paul will call them Jewish
and Gentile forms of the stoicheia tou kosmou, the basic principles, or
building blocks, of [one's understanding of] the universe.) Christians
are called to a new stoicheon (compare the verb, stoicheö, in Rom 4:12;
Gal 5:25; Phil 3:16), one that calls for an ongoing process of
abandoning the currently settled stoicheia tou kosmou by undergoing
the transformation of their minds-something that Paul in the middle
of Philians 3 seems to indicate that he himself is still in process of
striving toward. That already at Rom 12:1-2 Paul has in mind the
issues in 14:1-15:13, is suggested in part by the way some of the
language of 12:1-2 appears there. In 14:16-18, Paul writes,
Do not let your good [agathon] be spoken of as evil.

For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but
62
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit;

he who thus serves Christ is acceptable [euarestos] to
God and approved [dokimos] by men.
And in 14:22 he writes,
happy is he who has no reason to pass judgment

[krinö, as in w . 3, 10, 13] on himself for what he
approves [dokimazei]."
IV. Paul's Rhetoric: Greco-Roman, or JewistyScriptural?

I shall shortly examine Rom 14:1-15:13 a bit more fully in
light of the above analysis. But first I want to pause to engage a
methodological issue. In his very helpful essay, "Sacrifice in Romans
12-15,"12 Calvin Roetsel comments briefly on Robert Jewett's
exploration of Romans from the angle of rhetorical criticism, "a
method that explores the use of rhetorical strategies of speaking and
writing in the Hellenistic world." Comparing the form, and some key
elements in the substance, of Romans with ambassadorial letters in
the ancient world, Jewett "presents evidence that Paul appropriated
some features of the ambassadorial letter." 13 Roetzel says of such an
approach that
Time is needed to assess the value of this approach

and evaluate each individual application, but this
method in particular probably understates the
impact of the Jewish forms, metaphors, and symbols
on Paul's thought. Whether this approach allows us
to see the real Paul or only a different Paul in an ill-
fitting garment is still uncertain.14
12
Calvin J. Roetzel, "Sacrifice in Romans 12-15," Word and World, vol.
6, no. 4 (1986), 410-419.
13 Roetzel, "Sacrifice," 410.
14
Roetzel, "Sacrifice," 411.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 63

This is precisely the issue that the present paper engages in respect to
the phrase logiké latreia. In further engagement with it, I want to
examine some of the elements in Jewett's analysis as presented in a
paper of 1982, and as presented more fully in his 2007 commentary.15
I want to underscore that there is much in Jewett's essay that
I find valuable and dead on target. But rhetorical language is often
rife with more than one layer of meaning. As an exercise in
persuasion, it can function like poetry in T. S. Eliot's pithy simile-the
surface meaning is like meat the burglar throws to the watchdog
while the deeper meaning gains entry into the house. Or, to use a
biblical analogy, the individual terms are like the hairs on the animal
skins that cover Jacob's hands so that he, as "Esau," can steal his
father's blessing. With this, I turn to some of Jewett's evidence.
(1) Jewett proposes that "Paul's understanding of himself as
'apostle' is closely related to the Greco-Roman world's understanding
of 'ambassador.'" Noting that in 2 Cor 5:18-20 Paul in fact identifies
himself and his associates as "ambassadors for Christ," God speaking
through them to Paul's hearers, Jewett compares this to the
understanding of (Greco-Roman) royal diplomacy in which "the
officeholder carried the authority of the king himself."16 True. But
that is the case also with messengers in the Semitic world from pre-
Israelite times; and it is now well established that, for example, the
prophetic formula, "thus says the LORD," is exactly paralleled in
Babylonian and other correspondence and even in human-to-human
messages in the Bible. One may note that when Paul calls himself an
ambassador for God, the message God conveys through him is
excerpted from Isa 49:8, a passage that immediately follows the
second so-called Servant Song (where v. 1 may be echoed in Gal 1:15)
where the servant (sic) is called to be "a light to the nations, that my
salvation may reach to the ends of the earth." It is biblical passages
like this that underwrite Paul's intended mission to Spain. As for the
word "apostle," it may well echo ambassadorial applications of that
term in the Greco-Roman world; but Paul's "called {klétos) to be an
15
Robert Jewett, "Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter," Interpretation
36 (1982), 5-20.
16
Jewett, "Ambassadorial Letter," 10; and Jewett, Romans, 96-97.
64
apostle {apostólos), set apart {aphörismenos) for the gospel {euaggelion)

of God," cannot be divorced from such passages as Isa 49:1, "called"
{ekalesen)', 49:2, "choice arrow {belos eklekton); Isa 52:11, where, shortly
after another mention of the herald {euaggelizomenos) to Zion (52:7),
and the "all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God,"
the word comes to "those who bear the vessels of the LORD, to
"purify yourselves [aphoristhête] (52:11). See also Isa 61:1, where the
speaker claims to be anointed with the Spirit of God to "bring good
tidings [euaggelisasthai] to the afflicted; he has sent [apestalken]
me....
(2) Following a study by Carl Bjerkelund of "the background
of parakaleö, Ί exhort you,' and similar formulas in the Pauline
letters," Jewett takes such formulas to come "almost exclusively from
diplomatic and epistolary materials rather than from traditional
ethics."17 But-if I may put the matter as diplomatically as possible-
Paul's readers, and early Christians in general, did not listen to actual
diplomatic letters weekend by weekend in worship the way they did
listen to homilies on lections from the LXX, lections (certainly when
and where Paul preached) that would exploit such "evangelistic"
texts as those found in Isaiah 40-66. So Jewett might at least have
examined the possibility that Paul's use of parakaleö echoes with
implications from a prophecy that opens with instructions to
unidentified messengers, parakaleite parakaleite ton laon mou (Isa 40:1).
The verb occurs 20 times in Isaiah 40-66 (and the noun, paraklésis,
twice), including, for example, 61:2. Granted, in these passages the
word carries the connotation of encouragement rather than
exhortation. But there is plenty of exhortation in Isaiah 40-66, and the
basis for it is God's compassion and promise of deliverance, as, for
example, 49:13 which, coming after 49:1-12, grounds the preceding
words in saying, "For the LORD has comforted [êleêsen] his people,
and will have compassion [parekalesen] on his afflicted."
(3) Jewett then comments on the word "slave" {doulos) in
Rom 1:1 (a word that "has puzzled exegetes because its apparent
humility appears to contradict the elaborate claims about Paul as the
one 'called to be an apostle and set apart for the Gospel of God.'" He
17
Jewett, "Ambassadorial Letter," 11-12.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 65

himself takes Paul to be using the term in the sense it has in Rome in
reference to "influential slaves comprising the imperial bureaucracy,"
to present himself as "the imperial representative of Jesus Christ."18 It
would not be surprising if some Christians in the Roman
congregations-especially those not yet versed in the LXX or seasoned
in preaching from it-would hear in doulos Christou Iêsou such a
primary connotation. But at least for the Paul who preached many
such sermons, and who (at least as characterized in Acts 26:16-18, 23)
portrayed his own call, in terms taken from Deutero-Isaiah, the term
doulos more likely had the connotation it has in passages like Isa 49:3,
5, where "servant" Israel is called to be a light to the nations.
(4) Jewett, in his commentary, takes Rom 1:5 as elaborating in
a five-fold manner the "apostle" motif in 1:1. That elaboration
includes the much-debated expression hypakoê písteos, an expression
that "in the entirety of ancient literature" occurs only here and in
16:26.19 And James Dunn observes that the term hypakoê, "a little
known word at this time," occurs frequently (eleven times) in Paul
who must have "given it some prominence in his teaching."20 If the
phrase occurred frequently in Paul's preaching, the likelihood is that
he used it while preaching from texts concerning the central meaning
of the Gospel, as well as references to the Gospel's import for all
peoples, in which the themes of hearing and believing are closely
linked together. To ground his favored phrase in such passages
would give his use of the phrase scriptural backing while, conversely,
the scriptural backing would give the phrase its precise connotation.
A prime candidate for such a scriptural passage is Isa 53:1, which
Paul quotes at Rom 10:10,16-17,
The word [rhêma] is near you, on your lips and in

your heart (that is, the word of faith [rhêma tés
písteos] which we preach. . . . But they have not all
obeyed [hypêkousan] the gospel; for Isaiah says,
"Lord, who has believed [episteusen] our report
18
Jewett, "Ambassadorial Letter," 12-13.
19
Jewett, Romans, 96 and 110.
20
Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 17.
66
[akoéÇ]?" So faith [pistis] comes from what is heard

[akoês], and what is heard [akoe] comes by the
preaching [rhêmatos] of Christ.
Given that Paul can also speak of the akoê písteos (Gal 3:2, 5), the most
likely explanation for his unique phrase hypakoê písteos is that he
grounded it in Isa 53:1. If so, this provides further support for
understanding his apostleship (Rom 1:1) primarily in scriptural, and
only secondarily in Greco-Roman, terms.
(5) Jewett takes as a "peculiar motif" Paul's assertion that he
is "not ashamed of the Gospel" because it is "the power of God." And
he renders it meaningful by connecting it with "whether the
sovereign an ambassador represents is not commensurate with the
countervailing forces."21 He goes on to dispute "the currently
prevailing view that shame relates to a hypothetical 'eschatological
lawsuit' in which Paul hopes to prevail," for "[the view] provides no
basis for grasping the connection with the theme of 'power' in the
succeeding clause."22 To one who spent a good portion of his teaching
career studying Isaiah 40-55 with students, such a comment is
breathtakingly blinkered. Second Isaiah opens with the assertion that
"the word of our God will stand [yäqüm / menei] for ever," and it
closes with a similar assertion in 55:10-11, where "it shall not return
to me empty [reqäm]." The latter image, in biblical parlance, refers to
the inability of a word or its sender to accomplish what is intended.
In between these two passages, this eschatological vision is rife with
graphic portrayals of, and specific references to, the power of God
vis-à-vis the nations and their gods, as more than once caught up in a
courtroom-style evidentiary hearing. To give but two examples: first,
the repeated references to the "arm" of God are references to the
divine power, beginning in 40:10 and climaxing in 55:1; secondly, the
contrast, in 40:12-41:29 (climaxing in one such trial scene), between
God's unflagging might (40:26, 28-31) and the Gods who are empty
delusion (41:29). Within such a context, the language of shame
functions this way: Israel's enemies will experience the shame of
21
Jewett, "Ambassadorial Letter," 15.
22
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 67

having been wrong about what is going on in the world, and in
particular what Israel and her God is all about, while Israel will
rejoice in vindication.23 We may note especially the shame/honor
contrast in favor of Israel, in 45:16-17 and 22:25 where, again, a word
that "shall not return [empty]" proclaims (in words that Paul echoes
in Rom 14:11 and Phil 2:10) that every knee shall bow and every
tongue shall confess that "only in the LORD are righteousness and
strength." As diplomatically as I can, I would like to say to Jewett,
"good grief, Charlie Brown!" How much evidence does one need for
hearing in Paul's words in 1:16-17 reverberations of Isaiah?
(6) Finally, I want to review Jewett's treatment of Rom 15:16
where, as he rightly points out, Paul resumes the theme of 1:1,5-6,13-
15, by writing,
on some points I have written to you very boldly by

way of reminder, because of the grace given me by
God to be a minister [leitourgon] of Christ Jesus to
the Gentiles in the priestly service [hierourgounta] of
the gospel of God, so that the offering [prosphora] of
the Gentiles may be acceptable [euprosdektos],
sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
Noting that in 13:16 Paul had used the word leitourgos to describe
government officials, Jewett draws on the work of C. Spicq who
shows that "the basic context of this word in Greco-Roman culture
was voluntary service to the state," and that the word occurs in
"inscriptions celebrating the ambassadors of Athens and other cities .
. . who represent the power and foreign policy of the state." He goes
on to cite the insistence of Schlier and Käsemann that the use of terms
like "priestly service" and "offering" "does not imply that Paul
thought of himself as a priest in the traditional sense." And he
concludes, "As in the opening verses of Romans, the formal language
23
The shame of Israel's foes is mentioned in 41:11; 42:17; 45:16, 24;
47:3; 49:23. But Israel will be delivered from shame (45:17; 50:6, 7;
54:4).
68
has a credentialing effect; its bearing is bureaucratic and diplomatic,

not sacerdotal."24
Does it not give Jewett and company pause, that hierourgeö
never occurs in native Greek contexts with anything but a cultic
reference? Given that fact, and the fact that the LXX in scores of
passages contains the words hieros and leitourgos in the same verse,
always referring to a cultic functionary, surely there needs to be
powerful evidence that Paul's paired usage here does not reflect that
LXX usage. Of course Paul did not think of himself as a priest "in the
traditional sense"! Neither did the writer in Isaiah 61 think in
traditional terms when, in writing about matters that have already
attracted our attention to this chapter, he says (w. 5-7),
Aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners

shall be your plowmen and vinedressers; but you
shall be called the priests [hiereis] of the LORD, men
shall speak of you as the ministers [leitourgoi] of our
God; you shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in
their riches you shall glory. Instead of your shame
you shall have a double portion, instead of dishonor
you shall rejoice in your lot; therefore in your land
you shall possess a double portion; yours shall be
everlasting joy.
To be sure, these two Greek terms translate scores of passages in

which their Hebrew equivalents refer to cultic functionaries in the
narrow sense. Here, the whole people are named-vis-à-vis the
nations-as priests and ministers. The origin of such a "non-
traditional" notion may lie in Exod 19:3-6, here retrieved and invested
with eschatological import.
Finally I make the following comments about Paul's choice of
the verb hierourgounta. In the LXX it does not occur anywhere in the
best manuscripts. But in 4 Mace 7:8, where RSVA gives "those who
are administrators of the law" for the Greek dêmiourgountas ton
nomon, the Sixtine Edition of the LXX (1587) contains the variant
24
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 69

phrase, hierourgontas ton nomon, "those who are priestly
administrators of the law." And according to Moses Hadas,25 Grimm
and Dupont-Sommer conjecture that the latter is to be preferred. That
this verb would be at home in 4 Maccabees is indicated by the
presence, as a sole occurrence in the LXX, of the cognate noun
hierourgia in 3:20, "Seleucus Nicanor, king of Asia, had both
appropriated money to them for the temple service [hierourgian] and
recognized their commonwealth [politetan]" If one could establish the
superiority of the variant reading in 7:8, a striking, if dialectical,
parallel would arise between hierourgontas ton nomon here and Paul's
hierourgontas ton nomon. The implication would be that general
Christian behavior, considered in the terms of worship, would be
governed by the Gospel in a manner analogous to the way general
Jewish behavior, considered in terms of worship, would be governed
by the law. That, of course, is precisely what I am arguing as the
dialectical relation between the phrase logiké latreia in Rom 122:1 and
the phrase eusebês logismos repeatedly in 4 Maccabees.
(7) The point of this long digression is make a
methodological plea for the notion that, however familiar Paul was
with Greek literature and usage, and Greco-Roman culture, and
however cleverly he may have used elements in them as vehicles for,
or points of initial contact with, his biblically grounded message, it
was this scriptural frame of reference that provided his point of
departure and often his vocabulary, and that most deeply informed
his continuing reflections on the meaning of the cross and
resurrection and the present and future reign of Christ as God's
Messiah for the redemption of the whole world.
In this connection, I recall Roetzel's suspicion, quoted above,
that approaches like that of Jewett understate "the impact of Jewish
forms, metaphors, and symbols on Paul's thought." I have two minor
quibbles with Roetzel on this point. First, his image of "impact"
suggests the belated imprint of something on a mind and, more
deeply, a sensibility, already otherwise nurtured and developed. The
Paul who understood himself to have been called from his mother's
25
Moses Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1953), 183-183
70
womb was someone for whom Jewish forms, metaphors, and

symbols were ingested so early that nothing by way of cultural
formation preceded them. Ingested with his mother's milk, they did
not simply form the chief object of his religious studies and reflection,
but attuned the sensibility and provided the language by means of
which, like a lens, he perceived and interpreted all of reality. This is
why, as Richard Hays has so finely taught us to appreciate, Paul's
letters echo and re-echo with his Scriptures even when he is not
quoting them, and often when he may be presumed not to be
conscious of echoing them until, perhaps, after the fact.
My second minor quibble with Roetzel is over the fact that
when he comes to logikèn latreian in Rom 12:1 he forgets his own
criticism of Jewett. Translating it "divine worship," he writes of this
phrase,
The term logikèn goes beyond the English cognate

"logical" to encompass a godly form of worship.
Does Paul know the way the divine logos [from
which logikèn is derived] stands for the divine
essence or reason that suffuses all that is?26
It is simpler, and closer to the agenda that Paul intends to develop in

14:3-15:13, to take the adjective logikos as having a connotation and
function analogous to the connotation and function of its noun
cognate logismos in 4 Maccabees. For the issue that Paul addresses
most fully in this following section-the observance of the Mosaic food
laws-is precisely the issue contested by Antiochus, and Eleazar and
companions, in 4 Maccabees.
V. Romans 14:1-15:13 as a Test Case of logikë latreia

I want now to probe briefly into Romans 14:1-15:13 as the test
case that Paul offers for the Romans to asses how they are doing with
the challenge of Rom 12:1-2.1 shall begin by re-stating that challenge
in the following way.
26
The translation, "divine worship," occurs at Roetzel, "Sacrifice," 14,
while the indented quotation occurs at Roetzel, "Sacrifice," 416.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 71

The call of God, in and through the divine mercies benefacted
to them in and through Christ, is for them to present their bodies as a
living sacrifice. Their whole lives are to embody, in their own way,
the symbolic pedagogy of the sanctuary sacrifices already embodied
in Christ's life and death as a hilastêrion for "all" (3:23-26). It is such a
style of living, in conformity with the will of God, that will be holy,
acceptable, good, acceptable again, and "perfect [teleion]." The
repeated word, euareston, occurs in the Pauline tradition almost
always with God in the dative (elsewhere, Rom 14:8; 2 Cor 5:9; Eph
5:10; Col 3:20; and especially Phil 4:8; en. Titus 2:9). The adjective
occurs in the LXX only in Wisd 4:10 and Sir 44:16 (both referring to
Enoch as pleasing to God), and in Wisd 9:10, where Solomon, having
built the temple with its altar and housing the law, invokes sophia
from God's holy heaven and the throne of his glory to be with him
and toil with him, "that I may learn [gno] what is pleasing [euareston]
to thee." These usages are grounded in the LXX use of the cognate
verb, euaresteö where it translates the Hebrew verb haœlak™, "walk," in
its iterative or frequentative stem.27 as in Gen 5:22, 24; 6:9. And We
may note especially this verb's occurrence in Gen 17:1 ("walk
[euarestei] before me, and be blameless [amemptos]"), a text that in
respect to the phrase, "be blameless," Paul echoes in Phil S^.28 Gen
27
The occurrences are in Gen 5:24 (Enoch); 6:9 (Noah); 17:1 and 24:40
(Abraham); 48:15 (Abraham and Isaac); and Ps 26:3; 35:14; 56:13;
116:9.
28
Paul's seven-fold recitation of his marks as a quintessential follower
of Mosaic law begins with "circumcised the eighth day" and ends
with "as to righteousness under the law blameless [amemptos]." In
Gen 17:1 the institution of circumcision involves the call to Abraham
to walk [hithallêk / euaresteö] before God and be blameless [tämim/
amemptos]. Intriguingly, Hebrew tämim as a cultic term is rendered
almost 40x in the Pentateuch with amömos, but only in Gen 17:1 with
amemptos. Since the Pauline tradition elsewhere can use either word
{amemptos in Phil 2:15; 1 Thess 3:13; amömos in Eph 1:4; 5:27; Phil 2:15;
Col 1:22), I take amemptos in Phil 3:6 as echoing Gen 17:1 and-since
Genesis 17 narrates the institution of circumcision-thereby forming
an inclusio with the opening reference to circumcision in Phil 3:5.
72
17:1, of course, introduces the scene in which circumcision is

instituted. All this is to suggest that the repeated adjective euarestos in
Rom 12:1-2 draws on LXX usage especially as focused on
circumcision. As Paul emphasizes in Phil 3:3-4, the "walk" that is
"pleasing" or "acceptable" before God is now opened up for
reconsideration. What, in the light of Christ, is now to be considered
as holy, and acceptable, and good, and teleionl What now is to be
considered logiké latreia?.
For Paul, that question can no longer be answered adequately
within the frames of reference anyone could appeal to before they
became followers of Christ as their Lord. We have seen how 4
Maccabees presents two such frames of reference, in the person of
Antiochus on the one hand and Eleazar and his companion martyrs
on the other. It is not hard to imagine the Paul of pre-Damascus-road
days reading 4 Maccabees and finding his own commitment to the
Mosaic law affirmed and deepened, to the point of encouraging him
to emulate the zeal of Phineas (4 Mace 18:12; Phil 3:6), noting also
how, the seven brothers coming under the threat of martyrdom (4
Mace 13:25-26), "a common zeal for nobility \kalokagathias] expanded
their goodwill and harmony [eunoian kai homonoian] toward one
another, because, with the aid of their religion [eusebeiq], they
rendered their brotherly love [philadelphian] more fervent
[kateskeuazon]."29 For such a Paul, who then underwent the dramatic
re-orientation described in Phil 3:5-14, the question of what is now to
be considered logiké latreia has to be completely rethought. Or rather,
the mind that seeks to carry out such a complete re-thinking has itself
to be transformed and "renewed." And this "renewal" cannot be
simply the sort of thing that, for example, "David" in Psalm 51
29
In Rom 12:10 Paul writes, tè Philadelphia eis allêlous philostorgoi,
literally, "in brotherly love, lovingly affectioned to one another." (In
1:31 Paul speaks of certain types as astorgous, "lacking in natural
affection). Intriguingly, in the LXX the noun, Philadelphia, occurs only
in 4 Mace 13:23, 26; 14:1, and the noun philostorgia occurs only in 2
Mace 6:20 and 4 Mace 15:6, 9 (and the adjective philostorgos occurs
only in 4 Mace 15:13). Is Paul so saturated with 4 Maccabees that he
echoes some of its key words in analogous contexts unconsciously?
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 73

confesses the need of. There, he has sinned, and is conscious of his
sin, within an established frame of reference. When he says, "create in
me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me," this
"creation" and "renewal" are in the nature of a restoration to a
pristine state once known but now forfeited and defaced. Everyone
within his community would understand what he meant, as living
within the same cultural cosmos. Other kings may take their
Bathshebas by right of eminent domain; but not kings in Israel. But
when Paul says, "if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; the
old has passed away, the new has come" (2 Cor 5:), this is a
"creation" and a "making new" of a different order. Now the mind
and heart have themselves to become new. What constitutes logiké
latreia now may have analogies to such service in previous and other
worlds, but those analogies are not a sufficient hermeneutical clue to
what now constitutes it.
The essentially contested problem in Rom 14:1-15:13 is that
the two factions in Rome are approaching the issues of food and
calendar from within two already established frames of reference, on
the one hand that exemplified by Eleazar and on the other hand that
exemplified by Antiochus. While Paul himself has come to the
conviction that all food is in itself now "clean," he does not simply
conclude that the meat-eating faction in Rome is right and those who
observe the dietary and calendrical laws are wrong. Nor vice versa.
Nor, I suggest, does he provide us with a settled verdict on exactly
how a third alternative may be spelled out in detail as a blueprint for
action henceforth. Rather, it seems to me, he seeks to draw them into
a place where they are to undergo the dangerous and painful process
of transformation by the renewal of their minds. This involves giving
up their respective certainties, and entering into a compact of mutual
respect and affection-as he says in chapter 12-of Philadelphia and
philostorgia, such that, in whatever they do, they may not "harm one
another," and in this way fulfill the chief commandment which is to
love one another (chapter 13).
To put the matter this way is to suggest that the agön in
which they ought to be engaged is not with one another, but between
what Paul calls the "old man" and the "new man" within each of
them. What does it mean, then, for those who feel free to eat anything
74
to submit their understanding of that freedom to the process of

transformation? Does it mean simply to give up their position and
agree with the other faction? Likewise, what does it mean for those
who feel themselves bound by the food and calendar laws? That they
should simply abandon that position and, with a bad conscience, eat
anything and everything? It means, rather, I venture to say, that each
faction is called to enter into the "no-man's-land,"30 the "no-place" of
the kenösis that Paul refers to in Phil 2:5-8. Given how Paul's
autobiographical references in Phil 3:5-14 are (as others have noted)
his attempt to pattern and understand himself on the Christ of 2:5-8,1
suggest that the kenösis to which followers of Jesus are called is, in a
manner of speaking, a call to go into the desert-what the Hebrew
Bible can call töhu -a place (like the wilderness of Sinai, a place where
Paul, in Gal 1:17, says he spent three years ...) that is as yet "without
form and void," to begin again to learn what now constitutes logike
latreia. Behind Rom 14:1-15:13 I think to hear the Paul who tells the
Philians that he doesn't think of himself as having yet arrived, nor
become períect-teteleiomai. Rather, using the language of a race with
its prize that I suspect he has picked up from its frequent occurrence
in 4 Maccabees, he presses on, in the attempt, first to re-conceive, and
then to embody, the polity of which the risen Christ is the head (Phil
3:20). When he calls on the Philians, in 2:12-13, to "work out your
salvation in fear and trembling," I suggest that this attitude is one
that befits people whose former ingrained understandings
{logismous)have been cast down, like the walls of a conquered city,
their former thoughts {noêmata) taken captive to Christ (2 Cor 10:4-5).
Such an attitude on their part is the equivalent in Philians 2:12-13 of
Paul's own self-description in Philians 3 and his renewed appeal to
them there not to consider themselves to have arrived.31 To say it
again, the {agön) to which he calls them is not simply the struggle to
30
1 apologize for the gendered language; but I am after the all-too-
familiar connotations of this phrase in its reference to the turf that lies
between the entrenched positions of two hostile forces engaged in
combat.
31
In Phil 2:12-13 Paul applies the expression "in fear and trembling"
to his Philian readers. He applies it to himself in 1 Cor 2:3.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 75

Uve up to a long-established politeuma and a familiar and well-
understood latreia; it is, in his day, a struggle between the established
and familiar ways ingrained so deeply within each heart and body,
and the unfamiliar ways to which they are called in order to live in
reasonable relation to and service of the new creation in which they
find themselves.
Excursus on Paul's Use of the Expression, "Fear and Trembling"

On the expression, "fear and trembling," commentators
generally agree that it is unique to the Pauline tradition (1 Cor 2:3; 2
Cor 7:15; Phil 2:12; Eph 6:5); that the two nouns occur together
repeatedly in the LXX; and that in the LXX the expression refers
"usually to . . . the dread that people (esp. enemies) are to sense in the
presence of God and his activity in the world."32 On the precise
connotations of the expression in Paul's usage, however, there is no
consensus. There is no space here to survey the variety of proposals.33
I shall simply present my own interpretation, as informed by the
general discussion in this paper and, in particular, Paul's own
experience, before and after the Damascus Road "turn-around," of
the agön over essentially contested concepts.
I shall start with a few comments on the presence of the
expression in the LXX, examining first those passages that translate
texts in the Hebrew Bible. (1) The occurrence in Exod 15:16 is of signal
significance, since the hymn in 15:1-18 has the status, in the O.T., of
what we might call a "national anthem." Thus, the expression occurs
as an integral part of the mighty acts of God in delivering Israel from
Egyptian oppression and bringing them to God's holy mountain to
covenant with them there and make them, as Exod 19:3-6 says, "a
kingdom of priests and a holy nation." The occurrences in Deut 2:25;
32
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991), 93-94.
33
Convenient surveys of scholarship on this expression may be found
in Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC;
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 213-215; and Peter T.
O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1991), 282-284,
76
11:25 echo this hymn in applying the expression to Israel's entry into
the promised land. (2) The occurrence in Ps 2:11 is of equal status
with the one in Exod 15:16, in the way it calls upon nations and their
kings, who are rebelling against the LORD and his anointed {mästah /
christos), to submit "in fear and trembling" to this anointed figure to
whom God has given the nations as an inheritance and the ends of
the earth as a possession. (3) Isa 19:16-25 presents five
eschatologically oriented oracles, each one beginning with "in that
day." The upshot of these oracles is that the great imperial powers of
Egypt and Assyria will become subject to the rule of Israel's God,
such that "Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing
in the midst of the earth." This audacious vision begins, in 19:16-17,
with Egypt trembling with fear "before the hand which the LORD of
hosts shakes before them." In all probability the presence of the
expression in this eschatological vision is informed by the usages in
Exod 15:16 and Psalm 2.
(4) The occurrence in Dan 4:37a is similar in orientation to the
one in Isa 19:16. The chapter narrates how Nebuchadnezzar, king of
Babylon, has a dream that only Daniel can interpret. It is a dream of a
tree whose top reaches the heavens and whose shade and fruit are
world-wide in their beneficence. Then the tree is cut down and only
its stump left, while the king that the tree represents is to be driven
into the wilderness and his mind changed into that of a beast. Twelve
months after Daniel interprets this dream to the king, the king, in the
midst of his self-congratulation over the glory of Babylon as his
imperial throne, is driven mad and driven out of human society. "At
the end of the days," Nebuchadnezzar lifts his eyes to heaven, and,
his reason returning to him, he blesses "the Most High," and both his
reason and his empire are restored to him. At the end of this chapter
the LXX adds a long passage, the first verse of which (37a) reads,
"From now on I will serve him. From fear of him trembling has
seized me, and I will praise all his holy ones."34 Following this,
Nebuchadnezzar continues with a commitment to serve and worship
"the Most High;" and he writes a circular letter to all nations "and to
34
The translation is that of John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 213.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 77

countries and people of all languages which Uve in all the countries in
generation after generation," calling on them likewise to worship "the
Lord, the God of heaven." All this suggests that Daniel 4 in the LXX
version is portrayed as one of those kings in Psalm 2 who, initially
rebelling against God, become obedient "in fear and trembling."
(5) In Gen 9:1-7, God's blessing on Noah echoes Gen 1:28-30
at several points. But whereas the command to "be fruitful and
multiply" is simply repeated, the conferral on humankind of
dominion over every other living creature is expressed differently. In
place of "let them have dominion," God says to Noah "The trembling
and fear of you [so the LXX] shall be upon" every other living
creature. Also, whereas in Genesis 1 humans and other living
creatures alike are provided with a vegetarian diet, the human diet is
expanded to include creaturely flesh, minus its blood. Given the
embeddedness in Gen 1:28b of "trembling and fear" in 9:2, and given
the thematic connections (especially in eschatological contexts)
between Davidic kingship and the human dominion of earth in
Genesis 1, the occurrence of he expression in 9:2 may be seen to fit the
pattern traced above.
Of the LXX translations from the Hebrew Bible, only Ps
55:5(54:6LXX) does not occur in a context celebrating Israel's national
or royal founding events, or Israel's eschatological hopes.35 Given the
coherence of this pattern otherwise, I suggest that it informs Paul's
use, particularly in relation to Psalm 2 with its celebration of the
worldwide scope of God's inheritance endowed on God's "anointed."
Further, I suggest that the significance of this expression for Paul may
be appreciated by consideration of the way in which his Gospel
advances the mother of all essentially contested concepts-the
universal rule of a crucified and risen Messiah.
In the ordinary affairs of diplomacy and war between
kingdoms and nations, what is contested is simply the claim and the
exercise of superior power. Superiority is measured by a commonly
35
Of the occurrences in the Apocrypha, Judith 2:28 and 1 Mace 7:18
refer to the fear and trembling before a human enemy. In Judith 15:2
and 4 Mace 4:10 we may hear echoes of the dominant usage in the
translational LXX.
78
agreed calculus of economic, diplomatic and, where necessary,

military resources-all of these backed up by the corresponding gods
of grain, wisdom and war. Power thus rests ultimately in the king's
army and in the "fear and trembling" that army can instill in other
weaker states. Wisdom consists in the effective deployment of
economic, diplomatic and military means to the achievement of
national ends. But this wisdom is essentially international in
character. The contest is only over who can exercise this wisdom and
this power most effectively. When Israel move adopts kingship "like
all the nations" (1 Sam 8:5), this move involves an essentially
contested concept of how God's kingly reign over Israel is to be
embodied in Israel's social structures; for some, like Samuel, the
adoption of kingship "like all the nations" constitutes a rejection of
Yahweh as Israel's king! The ensuing biblical texts relating to Davidic
kingship display conceptions of royal rule that in many respects
imitate conceptions of kingship in surrounding countries; though, as
indicated above, in reference to King Ahab, kingship in the post-
Davidic northern kingdom apparently diverge from the common
pattern. Beginning perhaps in the oracles of Isaiah, the wisdom of the
royal court is countered by God's wisdom,36 and this divine counter-
wisdom is elaborated in Deutero-Isaiah in connection with the elusive
figure of the Servant of the LORD. It is a wisdom that (as Isa 52:13-15
indicates) baffles kings in-formed by conventions of statecraft and its
wisdom. It is clear from a close reading of Paul's letters that his
understanding of wisdom and power is, scripturally speaking, deeply
in-formed by this complex Isaianic tradition.
As such, Paul's Gospel involves the proclamation of a
Messianic rule whose wisdom and power, as enacted and disclosed
on the cross, look for all the world like weakness and folly (1
Corinthians 1). The rulers of this world cannot comprehend it, for it is
a "secret and hidden wisdom," hidden within the very events that
disclose it (1 Cor 2:6-8). Indeed, it is a form of Messianic wisdom and
rule that once was hidden from Paul, who at first was one of the Jesus
36
See, e.g., Joseph Jensen, O.S.B., The use of torà by Isaiah: His Debate
with the Wisdom Tradition (CBQMS 3; Washington: The Catholic
Biblical Association of America, 1973).
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 79

movement's vigorous prosecutors. He prosecuted the church with a
clear conscience, a conscience informed by his understanding of what
true Messiahship should look like and of the marks of membership in
the messianic community. When Paul writes to the Corinthians that
though we live in the world we are not carrying on a

worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not
worldly but have divine power to destroy
strongholds. We destroy arguments [logismous] and
every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and
take every thought [noémà] captive to obey Christ (2
Cor 10:3-5).
I suggest that he is writing from personal experience of having had

his own deepest understandings of Messianic expectation utterly
turned inside out. I suggest that, in retrospect, he re-read himself into
Psalm 2, re-identifying himself there as among those who were
rebelling against the rule of God's Messiah, and therefore, as among
those called to obey that Messiah "in fear and trembling."
Commentators differ in their proposals for what Paul means when he
writes that he was "with" the Corinthians "in weakness {astheneia),
and in much fear and trembling." I suggest the following possibility-
that the "weakness" he refers to is the "weakness," to worldly
conceptions of ruling power, of the Messiah he proclaimed, and his
sense-human as he was-of how nonsensical such a message must
sound. If he can go on to say that he preached "in demonstration of
the Spirit and of power," that refers to the effect his preaching
evidently had on his converts, and not to his own efforts to render
this counter-wisdom and counter-intuitive power plausible in terms
of conventional statecraft. To speak of himself in this way, as with the
Corinthians in weakness and in much fear and trembling, is by way
of identifying himself with them as once rebellious and now coming
under the claim of Psalm 2. Further, we may link all this with his
attempt to address the factionalism evident in Corinth from 1
Corinthians 1:10-31. As in Phil 2:1-13 (and, we may note, in Rom 15:2-
7) his appeal to "be of one mind" is centered in the nature of the
wisdom and power of God manifest in a crucified Messiah.
80
What, in Paul's case, would lie at the core of such fear and
trembling? Given Paul's radical, indeed scandalous rhetoric in Phil
3:7-9,37 I take Paul's "fear and trembling" to reflect the seismic shock
of the Gospel to his deepest sense of the torah's distinctions between
the sacred and the profane, the clean and the unclean, distinctions
epitomized by circumcision, Sabbath observance and the food laws. I
take Phil 3:12, then, and Paul's repeated use of the expression, "fear
and trembling," to mean that Paul never fully recovered from that
seismic shock to his deepest sensibilities38 and understandings, and
continued to work out for himself and for the church, in a spirit of
fear and trembling, the implications of the gospel for how the nascent
church was to understand, frame, and live out an appropriate polity
embracing both Jews and Gentiles. That spirit, I suggest, was a spirit
divested of the sort of cocksureness borne of long-held and deeply
ingrained mores on the one hand or of a newly born, totally libertine
freedom on the other. What Paul was now sure of was the central
vision summarized, for example, in Phil 2:5-11. All else must be
brought under its light. With these heuristic proposals in mind, I turn
to a final remark.
VI. The agön over a logike latreia in the Contemporary Church

In light of the above analysis, one may venture that the
question for the church today is this: In what sense has it, by now,
been definitively established for all time what constitutes logikë latreia,
and in what sense, from time to time, at great risk, is the church called
to a fundamental transformation of its understanding of forms of life
emergently fundamental to this new creation. The point I am raising
here may be entertained in the following way. In an essay on the
authority of Scripture, N. T. Wright has proposed that the Bible tells a
story of redemption in five acts, with the first four acts narrated in
37
KJV "dung" is not too strong a translation of skybala in Phil 3:8,
given that connotation of the word in one Greek rendering in Ezek
4:12,15.S
38
Ezek 4:12-15 suggests the visceral embodiedness of religious
sensibilities in-formed by the dietary norms of he torah.
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 81

Scripture, Jesus being the fourth act, and the fifth act the one we find
ourselves in, with the New Testament forming "the first scene of the
fifth act, giving hints as well . . . of how the play is supposed to
end."39 Supposing the discovery of a play by Shakespeare missing its
fifth and final act, Wright analogizes as follows:
The first four acts provide . . . such a wealth of

characterization, such a crescendo of excitement in
the plot, that it is generally agreed that the play
ought to be staged. Nevertheless, it is felt
inappropriate actually to write a fifth act once and
for all: it would freeze the play into one form, and
commit Shakespeare as it were to being
prospectively responsible for work not in fact his
own. Better, it might be felt, to give the key parts to
highly trained, sensitive and experienced
Shakespearian actors, who would immerse
themselves in the first four acts, and in the language
and culture of Shakespeare and his time, and who
would then be told to work out afifthact for themselves..
. . Th[e] 'authority' of the first four acts . . . would
consist in the fact of an as yet unfinished drama,
which contained its own impetus, its own forward
movement, which demanded to be concluded in the
proper manner but which required of the actors a
responsible entering in to the story as it stood, in
order first to understand how the threads could
appropriately be drawn together, and then to put
that understanding into effect by speaking and
40
acting with both innovation and consistency.
I note in particular two elements of the above analogy. First, the fifth
act in which we are to immerse ourselves is to be marked by
39
N. T. Wright, "How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?" VE XXI
(1991), 19.
40
Ν. T. Wright, "Authoritative?" 18-19. (Italics in the original.)
82
"innovation and consistency," that is, a certain kind of relation between

New and Old; and second, that the criterion of consistency lies in
"entering into the story as it stood," that is, into the previous acts.
How do we identify those emergent aspects of our cultural
world that may be calling us to new understandings of what it means
to present our members as instruments of righteousness and
sanctification (Rom 6:13,19), to present our bodies as a living sacrifice
"holy and acceptable to God" (Rom 12:1)? And how do we
distinguish them from emergent aspects of our world that display the
world in all the ambiguity, all the fallenness, of its existence outside
of Eden, and over against which Rom 12:1-2 calls us not to be
"conformed"? The church in our day is plunged into an agön as
strenuous as that in which Antiochus and Eleazar were engaged. That
agön had to do with what is kata physin, and what is para physin-
categories over the appropriate application of which, in concrete
situations, Eleazar and Antiochus disagreed on ultimate grounds that
were themselves essentially contested. Some in the church lament this
internal struggle as distracting the church from its essential mission
in the world. It may be, however, that the church's mission in the
world may consist precisely in how it engages this agon-how, in
engaging it, the church, in fear and trembling, embodies "the mind of
Christ" (Phil 2:1-13).
Encounter 69.2 (2008) 83

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.

A New Aproach To Logiken Latreian in Rom 12

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A New Aproach To Logiken Latreian in Rom 12

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A NEW APPROACH TO "logikm

latreian" IN ROMANS 12:1-2

The renderings of the following commentators may be found where

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 45

But Paul does not engage in Polemical contrasts. His

Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1996); Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the

and unification as the fulfillment of the vision of

This passage, in my view, sums up the meaning of Rom 12:1-2

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 47

4 Maccabees repeatedly terms this contest an agon (in Greece, literally

I. I start with the pedestrian observation that the phrase logiké

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 49

making a high resolve [logismon], worthy of his

excellent life even from childhood, and moreover

The word here still describes an ad hoc mental act leading to a

was especially admirable and worthy of honorable

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 51

words logismos, euseb*, and thréskeia, and read the verses

Israelite children, offspring of the seed of Abraham,

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 53

The co-occurrence of verb and noun cognates, eusebeite and eusebeia,

These, then, who have been consecrated

purification of the homeland. In this connection we may note that the

inanimate place where expiating blood is applied, only in 4 Mace

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 55

II. The agön Over "Devout Reason" in 4 Maccabees

save yourself by eating pork.... It does not seem to

Does antikeitai in Gal 5:17 function analogously to parakeitai in Rom 7:18-21?

your futile reasonings [logismon], adopt a mind

We may note how the term "philosophy" emerges as itself an

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 57

preaching to others I myself should be disqualified [adokimos

I will not transgress the sacred oaths of my ancestors

In short, Eleazar defends the philosophical integrity and the

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 59

I may sum up the preceding argument in this way: For

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 61

Do not let your good [agathon] be spoken of as evil.

righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit;

And in 14:22 he writes,

happy is he who has no reason to pass judgment

IV. Paul's Rhetoric: Greco-Roman, or JewistyScriptural?

Time is needed to assess the value of this approach

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 63

apostle {apostólos), set apart {aphörismenos) for the gospel {euaggelion)

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 65

The word [rhêma] is near you, on your lips and in

[akoéÇ]?" So faith [pistis] comes from what is heard

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 67

on some points I have written to you very boldly by

has a credentialing effect; its bearing is bureaucratic and diplomatic,

Aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners

To be sure, these two Greek terms translate scores of passages in

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 69

womb was someone for whom Jewish forms, metaphors, and

The term logikèn goes beyond the English cognate

It is simpler, and closer to the agenda that Paul intends to develop in

V. Romans 14:1-15:13 as a Test Case of logikë latreia

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 71

17:1, of course, introduces the scene in which circumcision is

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 73

to submit their understanding of that freedom to the process of

Encounter 69.2 (2008) 75